View Single Post
Old 12-08-2012, 02:38 PM   #65
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner View Post
As a believer in the latter, I, and most other believers, readily admit it is based on faith. That, in and of itself, is admitting that we don't have absolute proof to support our beliefs. However, evolutionists typically won't admit that they have their own holes to absolute proof. It tends toward 'evolution is a fact' to the masses. In this thread, I give credit to Chum for saying both use 'magic' to prove their positions. I personally call both positions a faith because neither are provable through true scientific analysis (like Dalm I believe this type of analysis isn't being strictly used for evolutionists theories and for the same reasons he has pointed out, ie. circular reasoning on dating, contradiction of accidental origin when measured against Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.)
You obviously haven't read much of the thread since I already addressed the issue of uncertainties in science and Erica already addressed the issue about thermodynamics.

The observation that species evolve is the fact. The explanation of the overall mechanic that drives it (natural selection) is the theory. I guess it's easy to confuse the two, but the terms seem appropriate enough to me.

But saying it's a theory is not admitting it's a guess anymore than the term "theory of gravity" admits the existence of gravity is a guess. Guesses are labeled as hypotheses, not theories.

It's quite a leap to go from "there is uncertainty in both fields" to "the amount of uncertainty is the same in each" and "both use methods of the same validity." That last point is especially key. The insistence of the validity of evolution would indeed be arrogant and presumptuous if it was just dreamed up out of nowhere, but it came from years of observation and research. On the other hand...

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 12-08-2012 at 02:39 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote